New EQ10Q version is released

I'm happy to anounce that I've finished the implementation of a eq10q lv2 plugin new version. This new version of EQ10Q is a complete re-write of the first EQ10Q equalizer and includes some new features and improvements like:

Errors like yours are tipically related to compiler and gtkmm version. I have Developef eq10q under Debian Squeeze which uses older versions than other distros. Now I have to improve de code to be able to buil/run fine for other distros.

I am also having similar compilation problems as Cameron but strangely I'm having issues on AV Linux 6.0 (32bit) which is also based on Debian Squeeze so in this case we should have the same version of gtkmm 2.4 however AV Linux uses gcc 4.6 and Squeeze comes with 4.5 by default. I'll try a compile with gcc 4.5 and report back.

@sapista - Plugin is looking very good. Been trying it out here and i'm very impressed. Just something i thought i would mention, there seems to be some issue with the GUI running it under Mixbus 2.2.0. Here is a link to a screenshot for reference -

http://img.ctrlv.in/50a94173bc711.png

I don't have these issues under Ardour 2.8.14 or Ardour 3 beta 5 though.

I re-downloaded the source and the error is the same for me with both gcc-4.4 and gcc-4.5. I'm not 100% sure if I have the latest version although I did refresh your Sourceforge page before downloading, is the tarball name the same?

Been messing around with this on Ardour 3 beta 5 for awhile. After playing with and tweaking parameters for awhile, i closed down the plugin. When i came back to open it from the mixing strip, i encountered the same gui issue as the one i linked to. I saved and closed the session. When i opened it back up and opened the plugin, the gui was back to normal.

The tarball is a new one with a diferent name. Now you should test the tarball named eq10q-2-beta2.tar.gz. Be shure that you use that and please keep me posted.

@LeatusPenguin

For sure I will try to reproduce your issue to track it down. What is your distro? gcc version? gtkmm version? And.. I supose that Mixbus is distributed as static compiled packages, so someone know with which version of gtkmm was compiled mixbus?

OK progress... your updated beta2 version compiles for me with gcc-4.6 but there are a lot of compilation warnings. Thanks for your quick response :)

I tested it with Ardour 2.8.14 and Ardour 3beta5 and it seems all good...

Somewhat strangely the EQ10 does not work with Ardour3-VST built from the same SVN and built against the same Drobilla libs but that could very easily be a fluke of ArdourVST so probably not something you need to be concerned with.

@sapista: Looks very good, however, it has a severe denormal problem - CPU usage is 'ok' with audio, but when I stop the audio, CPU usage increases gradually up to about 60 - 70%

It also has very significant latency when moving the controls? - I swept a peak over a 1KHz tone and thought nothing was happening - however, when I centered the peak over the 1KHz tone and waited for a few seconds the level gradually started to rise (the same test with audio confirms that the filter follows the GUI but with a latency of several seconds)

There were also pages of compiler warnings when I built it - some of which look quite nasty - I think it would be wise to fix those before you go any further with it.

Hello, I am am on Ubuntu 12.10 (stock kernel). I am using gtkmm 2.4 and gcc 4.7.2. The new beta compiled succesfully, though it had about 4 or 5 errors. I will give it a try soon! Looks like a nice improvement.

@LeatusPenguin: all library versions for a2, a3, and Mixbus can be found in the tools/build-gtk-stack script.

FYI, we (Harrison) abandoned Gtk as a suitable plugin GUI toolkit as of the 2.2 release. If you use Gtk, you have to build the plugin to use the _exact_same_ gtk ( both compile-time and run-time) that the host is using. Gtk plugins often work on linux, because the distribution maintainers are building the Ardour and plugin source using the same Gtk. But the new Ardour/Mixbus binaries make this trickier. It becomes nearly impossible to distribute a standalone Gtk binary that works on a given system; and the problem is compounded further on windows and osx due to the differing link methods.

We want our plugins to work on all platforms, and "all" LV2 hosts, so we are using Dave Robillard's pugl opengl toolkit. This presents its own set of challenges, but our resulting plugins have enjoyed extremely wide support except for a few reported linux setups ( opengl and high-performance audio can be a troublesome combination on linux )

I welcome any interested plugin developers to contact me. I can help you with cross-platform development, get your plugin into the Mixbus binary packages, and add it to our store if you'd like.

I welcome any interested plugin developers to contact me..... get your plugin into the Mixbus binary packages, and add it to our store if you'd like.

How does this affect agreements with plugin developers such as myself who already have products in your store and (in my case) - are charged a significant percentage on sales - but whose products are not currently deployed with the Mixbus binaries?

If this represents a move to a "Mixbus App Store" style model (which is how it appears to me), with more widespread developer involvement, surely there needs to be a uniform agreement regarding pricing / distribution / free plugins etc, and, is it unreasonable to have assumed that if such a move was / is planned, that there might have been some prior consultation before an announcement on a public forum?

@linuxdsp:
about the latency problem. I can not reproduce it neither in ardour 2.8.14 neither ardour 3 beta5. Please can you explaint more detailedly this issue? For sure, fix problems like these is very important to me.

@All who have troubles with GUI (the curve graph)
I found a solution to that problem and it will be fixed in the next revision (beta3)

@sapista: If I switch a single band to a peak filter, and, with music (or tone) playing (it's easier to hear the effect with music) I sweep the filter frequency from one frequency to another using the control point on the graph, it seems as though nothing has happened, however, if I stop moving the control point, the filter can be heard to move very slowly to its new position. It suggests to me that, if you cannot reproduce it, then there is something (or several) things not being properly initialised - in this case to do with your smoothing / parameter interpolation - and on my system it just happens that this causes the smoothing to default to the longest possible time-constant. This is at 44.1 / 48kHz sample rate with a 512 sample buffer setting for JACK (the latency is far too long to be a JACK buffering issue - other plugins, including my graphical (Black EQ) :) are very responsive by comparison)

@sapista: There is also something not right with the graph, at 44.1 / 48kHz sample rate, again with a peak filter, the graph shows what appears to be a de-cramped filter response, whereas the real response (using an FFT) is not de-cramped at HF, therefore it could be argued that the graph is implying a better quality filter than that which is actually being used to process the audio.

If the points I have raised are a criticism they are intended as a constructive criticism, to help improve a promising free / open source product - it could be argued that my commercial interests would be better served by not bringing the issues I have discovered to the attention of the developer(s)

Without wishing to divert this thread to yet another commercial vs free discussion, one of the things I perhaps haven't made clear in (this thread or in others) is that as a linux user as well as a developer, one of the main motivations for creating my software was because I thought linux had great potential for audio, and I have a fundamental desire to see credible software for it that works and works well. I've voiced opinions previously about other software (Ardour included) and the important point is that its precisely because I believe in projects like Ardour (and others) that it's frustrating when I see aspects of their design which are good, but could be several orders of magnitude better with a few tweaks. Better software for linux audio is in everyone's interest - commercial / free / open-source / developers / and users. I apply the same standards when I develop / use my own software too and I'm equally disappointed if there are occasions when that doesn't meet my own (high) expectations.
As regards commercial vs free, I think these are two different (and complementary) 'markets' - and therefore - odd though it may seem - I'm not too concerned about 'competition'.
There are differences both in the quality and support expectations of free vs commercial (while there are many excellent free projects and many very helpful and committed developers, there is no obligation for a developer to continue with or support a free (not for profit) project, whereas a commercial developer has a revenue stream which depends on the quality of the product and for that reason alone should be focused on providing support or resolving issues - apart from other obligations to provide a product which is fit for purpose).
Additionally, the development costs are hugely different for a commercial developer (I have to maintain and test on many different platforms, architectures, distributions etc, all of which adds to the cost of creating the software and further necessitates the need to charge for it - but hopefully results in a comprehensively tested product. In contrast, a developer working using a machine they would likely have purchased anyway, even if they weren't developing software - and without the requirement to test on any other platform / distro, likely has a much lower cost of development, and can therefore better afford to give the software away)

LinuxDSP, along with any other plugin developer who creates plugins that will work with Ardour (or Mixbus) on at least one platform that Ardour runs on, is entirely welcome to promote their work in these forums as long as it is done tastefully, without excessive hubris, and avoids deceipt or deprecation of others. All clear?

These people are helping to create/sustain a platform in which you can use Ardour to get stuff done.